transmittal memorandum - international actuarial · web viewthe alternative approach should...

Proposed FinalInternational Standard of

Actuarial Practice 3Actuarial Practice in relation to

IAS 19 Employee Benefits

Approved by the IAA Council

[Day Month Year]

ISAP 3(Pro

NOTE: Defined terms and references to ISAP 1 in this proposed final ISAP are marked in blue coloured text with a dotted underline. The defined terms in the approved final ISAP will have hyperlinks to the relevant definition in the glossary, and references to ISAP 1 will have hyperlinks to ISAP 1. Please note that the hyperlinks have not been created in this proposed final version.

Proposed Final ISAP 3 IAS 19 Employee Benefits [Month Year]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface..................................................................................................................................................ii

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................iii

Section 1. General.................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Scope.....................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Compliance...........................................................................................................................1

1.4 Relationship to ISAP 1.........................................................................................................1

1.5 Defined Terms......................................................................................................................1

1.6 Cross References..................................................................................................................1

1.7 Effective Date.......................................................................................................................2

Section 2. Appropriate Practices...........................................................................................................3

2.1 Knowledge of Accounting Requirements.............................................................................3

2.2 Materiality.............................................................................................................................3

2.3 Proportionality......................................................................................................................3

2.4 Constructive Obligations......................................................................................................4

2.5 Categorization of Employee Benefit Plan............................................................................4

2.6 Actuarial Assumptions..........................................................................................................4

2.7 Plan Assets............................................................................................................................9

2.8 Asset Ceiling.........................................................................................................................9

2.9 Attribution of Benefits to Service Periods............................................................................9

Section 3. Communication..................................................................................................................10

3.1 Disclosures in the Report....................................................................................................10

Appendix.............................................................................................................................................11

i


Preface

[Drafting Notes: when an actuarial standard-setting organization adopts this standard it should:

1. Replace “ISAP” throughout the document with the local standard name, if applicable;

2. Modify references to ISAP 1 in paragraphs 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5.3, 2.6, 2.6.3, 2.7.1, and 3.1 to point to the local standard(s) that are substantially consistent with ISAP 1, rather than referring to ISAP 1 directly, if appropriate;

3. Choose the appropriate phrase and date in paragraph 1.7;

4. Review this standard for, and resolve, any conflicts with the local law and code of professional conduct; and

5. Delete this preface (including these drafting notes) and the footnote associated with paragraph 1.7.]

This International Standard of Actuarial Practice (ISAP) is a model for actuarial standard-setting bodies to consider.

The International Actuarial Association (IAA) encourages relevant actuarial standard-setting bodies to take action to arrive at a set of standards that includes the content of and is consistent with this ISAP (to the extent the content of this ISAP is relevant for actuaries in their jurisdiction). This can be achieved in many ways (which may involve translation into the language(s) of the standard setter) including:

Adopting this ISAP as a standard with only the modifications in the drafting notes; Customising this ISAP into a standard;

Endorsing this ISAP;

Modifying existing standards to obtain substantial consistency with this ISAP;

Confirming that existing standards are already substantially consistent with this ISAP.

Such an adopted standard (rather than this ISAP) applies to those actuaries who are subject to such body’s standards, except as otherwise directed by such body (for example with respect to cross-border work).

If an actuarial standard-setting body wishes to adopt or endorse this ISAP it is essential to ensure that existing standards are fully consistent with ISAP 1 as this ISAP relies upon ISAP 1 in many respects.

When this ISAP is translated, the adopting body should select three verbs that embody the concepts of “must”, “should”, and “may”, as described in paragraph 1.6. Language of ISAP 1, even if such verbs are not the literal translation of “must”, “should”, and “may”.

This ISAP is only binding upon an actuary if the actuary states that some or all of the work has been performed in compliance with this ISAP (e.g. if directed to do so by the principal), or if directed by the actuary’s standard-setting body.

This ISAP was adopted by the IAA Council in [month year].

ii


Introduction

This International Standard of Actuarial Practice (ISAP) provides guidance to actuaries when performing actuarial services in connection with International Accounting Standard 19 (IAS 19) Employee Benefits.

The reporting entity is responsible for all the information reported in its IFRS financial statements, including information reported in accordance with IAS 19. This means the reporting entity is responsible for the categorization of employee benefit plans, the choice of actuarial assumptions and methods used to measure employee benefit obligations, and disclosures about employee benefit plans. IAS 19 encourages, but does not require, a reporting entity to involve a qualified actuary in the measurement of all material post-employment benefit obligations.

In practice, an actuary may advise on a range of issues arising from the application of IAS 19, including the measurement of short-term, post-employment, termination, or other long-term employee benefits and disclosures in the IFRS financial statements.

This ISAP is intended to:

Facilitate convergence in actuarial practice in connection with IAS 19 within and across jurisdictions;

Increase reporting entities’ and their auditors’ confidence in actuaries’ contributions to reporting of employee benefits in accordance with IAS 19;

Increase public confidence in actuaries’ services for IAS 19 purposes; and

Demonstrate the IAA’s commitment to support the work of the IASB in achieving high quality, transparent, and comparable, financial reporting internationally, as envisaged by the Memorandum of Understanding between the IAA and the IASB.

iii


Section 1. General

1.1. Purpose – This ISAP provides guidance to actuaries when performing actuarial services in connection with IAS 19. Its purpose is to increase intended users confidence that:

Actuarial services are carried out professionally and with due care, consistent with IAS 19, and taking into account the reporting entity’s accounting policies;

The results are relevant to their needs, are presented clearly and understandably, and are complete; and

The assumptions and methodology (including, but not limited to, models and modelling techniques) used are disclosed appropriately in the actuary’s report.

1.2. Scope – This ISAP provides guidance to actuaries when performing actuarial services in connection with IAS 19. The focus is on actuarial services provided for a reporting entity’s preparation of an actual or pro-forma IFRS financial statement for any type of employee benefit the reporting entity determines to be covered by IAS 19. Actuaries providing actuarial services in connection with IAS 19 that are outside of this focus (for example, an actuary advising an auditor or advising a potential buyer regarding an acquisition) should consider the guidance in this ISAP to the extent relevant to the assignment.

1.3. Compliance – [For this ISAP, this paragraph replaces paragraph 1.3. in ISAP 1] An actuary may fail to follow the guidance of this ISAP but still comply with it where the actuary:

1.3.1. complies with requirements of law that conflict with this ISAP.

1.3.2. complies with requirements of the actuarial code of professional conduct applicable to the work that conflicts with this ISAP.

1.3.3. departs from the guidance in this ISAP and provides, in any report, an appropriate statement with respect to the nature, rationale, and effect of any such departure.

1.4. Relationship to ISAP 1 – Where possible, this ISAP does not repeat guidance already provided in ISAP 1. Any actuary who asserts compliance with this ISAP (as a model standard) must also comply with ISAP 1. References in ISAP 1 to “this ISAP” should be interpreted as applying equally to this ISAP 3, where appropriate.

1.5. Defined Terms – This ISAP uses various terms whose specific meanings are defined in the Glossary. These terms are highlighted in the text with a dashed underscore and in blue, which is a hyperlink to the definition (e.g., actuary). This ISAP also uses terms defined in IAS 19, in which case they have the same meaning.

1.6. Cross References – This ISAP refers to the content of IAS 19, including any interpretations from the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee or the Standing Interpretations Committee thereon, as issued through [mmm 2014]. If IAS 19 is subsequently amended, restated, revoked, or replaced after [mmm 2014], the actuary should consider the guidance in this ISAP to the extent it remains applicable and appropriate.

1


1.7. Effective Date – This ISAP is effective for {actuarial services performed/actuarial services commenced/actuarial services performed with respect to an IFRS financial statement issued}1 on or after [Date].

1 [Phrase to be selected and date to be inserted by standard setter adopting or endorsing this ISAP.].

2


Section 2. Appropriate Practices

2.1. Knowledge of Accounting Requirements –The actuary should have or obtain sufficient knowledge and understanding of IAS 19, IFRSs that are interpretations of IAS 19, relevant paragraphs of other IFRSs to which IAS 19 specifically refers, and the reporting entity’s relevant IFRS accounting policies. If the actuary:

a. is uncertain whether another IFRS is relevant to the actuarial services, or

b. envisions that a specific component of the actuarial services may be subject to alternative interpretations of IAS 19, an IFRS that is an interpretation of IAS 19, a relevant paragraph of another IFRS to which IAS 19 specifically refers, or relevant IFRS accounting policies,

the actuary should seek advice from the principal, and treat the advice as information to which ISAP 1, paragraph 2.3. Reliance on Others, applies.

2.2. Materiality – The actuary should understand the distinction between materiality with respect to the actuarial services, the preparation of IFRS financial statements and the auditing of those financial statements.

2.2.1. The reporting entity is responsible for determining materiality with respect to the preparation of IFRS financial statements. When appropriate for the work, the actuary should seek guidance from the principal or reporting entity regarding materiality and take that guidance into account when performing the actuarial services .

2.2.2. In applying ISAP 1 paragraph 2.4. Materiality, the actuary’s threshold of materiality with respect to the actuarial services should be the same as or less than the reporting entity’s threshold of materiality with respect to the preparation of IFRS financial statements, if known. The principal or reporting entity (not the user of the IFRS financial statements) is the intended user of the actuarial services when assessing materiality with respect to the actuarial services.

2.2.3. In all following paragraphs of this ISAP, any use of “material” or “materiality” is with respect to the actuarial services.

2.3. Proportionality –In applying ISAP 1 paragraph 1.5. Reasonable Judgment, and in particular paragraph 1.5.2., the actuary should take materiality into account. The degree of refinement in specific assumptions or methods recommended by the actuary should be consistent with the impact on the actuarial services. Examples include, all of which being subject to the actuary’s professional judgment:

a. The actuary may use simplified approaches to recommending assumptions when those assumptions will not materially affect the results or are proportionate for the actuarial services. For example, when a pension plan pays primarily lump sum benefits at termination or retirement, the choice of mortality assumption may have little impact on the liabilities. As a second example, for certain work-related accident or injury benefits, the projected benefit cash flows may be so uncertain as to make a highly refined approach to selecting the discount rate disproportionate.

b. In lieu of collecting new employee census data at the measurement date, the actuary may appropriately adjust results using data collected at a different date when doing so will not materially affect the results.

3


c. The actuary may adopt or adapt assumptions selected for other purposes (such as to determine funding of the employee benefit plan) or demographic assumptions used at a prior measurement date when those assumptions are reasonable for IAS 19 purposes at the current measurement date.

d. The actuary may apply simplified methods to attribute benefits to periods of service when doing so will not materially affect the results.

2.4. Constructive Obligations – The actuary may rely on representations made by the principal regarding the existence and nature of any constructive obligations arising from the reporting entity’s employee benefit practices or policies. When doing so, the actuary should be guided by ISAP 1 paragraph 2.3. Reliance on Others.

If it becomes apparent to the actuary in the course of performing the actuarial services that significant uncertainties exist regarding such representations, the actuary should seek clarification from the principal. If the uncertainty is not resolved to the actuary’s satisfaction, the actuary should be guided by ISAP 1 paragraph 2.5.4. Data Deficiencies.

This guidance does not impose additional duties on the actuary beyond the scope of the actuarial services to search for or analyse constructive obligations that go beyond formal plans or agreements.

2.5. Categorization of Employee Benefit Plan – The reporting entity is responsible for determining the categorization of its employee benefit plans under IAS 19 as short-term, defined benefit post-employment, defined contribution post-employment, termination, or other long-term.

2.5.1. The actuary may advise the principal regarding the categorization of an employee benefit plan. When providing such advice, the actuary should exercise professional judgment when an employee benefit plan has characteristics of multiple categories (such as retirement plans that combine elements of defined benefit and defined contribution plans, or employment-related injury benefits that include both medical care and wage replacement).

2.5.2. If the actuary is uncertain as to the reporting entity’s categorization of an employee benefit plan, the actuary should seek guidance from the principal.

2.5.3. The actuary should treat the reporting entity’s categorization of its employee benefit plans as a prescribed methodology to which ISAP 1 paragraph 2.8. Assumptions and Methodology Prescribed, applies.

2.6. Actuarial Assumptions – The reporting entity is responsible for selecting assumptions that are unbiased, mutually compatible, and represent the reporting entity’s best estimates of the variables that will determine the ultimate costs of its employee benefits. The actuary may advise the principal regarding the selection or reasonableness of some or all of the assumptions to be used in the actuarial services. In doing so, the actuary should be guided by paragraphs 2.6. – 2.9. of ISAP 1, taking into account IAS 19’s requirements regarding assumptions used to measure defined benefit post-employment plans, termination benefits, or other long-term benefits. In particular, when using prescribed assumptions, the actuary should be guided by ISAP 1 paragraph 2.8. Assumptions and Methodology Prescribed.

2.6.1. General Approach for Selecting Assumptions – When advising the principal on the selection or reasonableness of actuarial assumptions, the actuary should:

a. Identify the types of assumptions needed to perform the actuarial services;

4


b. Evaluate information relevant to each type of assumption:

i. With respect to financial assumptions, the actuary should review information on market-implied expectations at the measurement date. Examples of such information include:

corporate or government bond yields;

yields on nominal and inflation-indexed debt;

recent changes in relevant price indices (such as general or medical price inflation indices);

forecasts of inflation, employment data and projections; and

economic data and analyses prepared by experts.

The actuary may also consider the reporting entity’s expectations regarding assumptions where the reporting entity can influence future experience, for example, if the reporting entity has implemented a salary freeze;

ii. With respect to demographic assumptions, the actuary should review information that, in the actuary’s professional judgment, is relevant to the population covered by the reporting entity’s employee benefits. Examples of such information include:

the experience of the covered population to the extent credible;

analyses prepared by experts such as published tables or experience studies;

studies or reports on general trends relevant to the particular demographic assumption;

the reporting entity’s future expectations regarding assumptions where the reporting entity can influence future experience; and

relevant factors known to the actuary that may affect future experience such as the economic conditions of the geographic area or industry, availability of alternative employment, and the reporting entity’s human resource policies or practices.

This guidance does not impose additional duties on the actuary beyond the scope of the actuarial services to review the experience of the covered population.

c. Select an appropriate format for each type of assumption, taking into account materiality (see 2.2.) and proportionality (see 2.3.) (for example, mortality rates typically vary by gender and age, and when material and proportionate to the actuarial services, might also vary by calendar year, employment type, location, or other factors);

d. Recommend assumptions that in the actuary’s opinion, are unbiased, mutually compatible, and, if adopted by the reporting entity, would be appropriate to represent the reporting entity’s best-estimate.

2.6.2. Mortality Assumption – When advising the principal on the selection or reasonableness of the mortality assumption, the actuary should reflect expected

5


changes in plan member’s future mortality rates when material and proportionate to the actuarial services. Examples of methods for reflecting future mortality rates include using a matrix including separate mortality tables for each year or year of birth or projecting the mortality rates for an appropriate period.

2.6.3. Discount Rate Assumption – When advising the principal on the selection or reasonableness of the discount rate assumption, the actuary should take into account IAS 19’s requirement that the discount rate reflect market yields at the measurement date on high quality corporate bonds (if the market for such bonds is deep) or government bonds, where such bonds are consistent with the currency and estimated term of the employee benefit obligation. The actuary may use a variety of approaches to identify a discount rate assumption that satisfies this requirement, including the following:

a. Full Yield Curve – The actuary may recommend a full spot-rate yield curve for discounting projected benefit cash flows. The actuary may develop an appropriate yield curve from bond yield data at the measurement date. Alternatively, the actuary may apply a third party’s yield curve, which the actuary has determined is appropriate for the purpose of selecting an IAS 19 discount rate (or has adjusted so as to make it appropriate). When applying a third party’s yield curve, the actuary should be guided by ISAP 1, paragraph 2.3. Reliance on Others.

i. Bond Universe – When developing a yield curve or assessing the appropriateness of a third party’s yield curve, the actuary should consider the characteristics of the bond universe used to create the yield curve, including currency and, for corporate bonds, both quality and market depth. The actuary should also consider whether adjustments are needed to deal with “outliers” – bonds with substantially different yields than the yields on most bonds of similar quality and duration included in the universe – or with bonds that have special characteristics such as call features.

ii. Curve-fitting, Interpolation, and Extrapolation – When the actuary is constructing the yield curve from the available bond data in the same currency, the actuary should exercise professional judgment in applying appropriate curve-fitting, interpolation, or extrapolation techniques to estimate yields at durations where the actuary considers the bond market data unreliable or such data does not exist. Such techniques may take into account (with an appropriate spread or other adjustment) other market data sources such as yields on government or lower-rated corporate bonds, the swaps market, or yields on government or corporate bonds in other currencies with market-observable yields at durations beyond the longest duration bond in the same currency as the employee benefits and which the actuary, having applied professional judgment, considers appropriate for this purpose.

An actuary using this approach may also determine a single weighted-average discount rate based on the yield curve (as described in 2.6.3.b.) for the reporting entity’s use in the IFRS financial statement disclosures.

6


b. Single Weighted-average Discount Rate Based on Yield Curve – The actuary may recommend a single weighted-average discount rate assumption determined by:

i. Projecting cash flows on and after the measurement date of benefits attributed to employee service up to the measurement date;

ii. Applying an appropriate yield curve (as described in 2.6.3.a. above) to determine the present value of the cash flows projected in 2.6.3.b.i.; and

iii. Calculating a single weighted-average discount rate that produces substantially the same present value determined in 2.6.3.b.ii.

c. Single Weighted-average Discount Rate Based on Bond Model – The actuary may recommend a single weighted-average discount rate assumption determined by:

i. Projecting cash flows on and after the measurement date of benefits attributed to employee service up to the measurement date;

ii. Applying a bond model to identify a portfolio of bonds – appropriately selected from the bond universe described in 2.6.3.a.i. above – that generates substantially the same cash flows projected in 2.6.3.c.i. At durations where the actuary considers the bond market data unreliable or such data does not exist, the actuary should apply techniques as described in 2.6.3.a.ii. above;

iii. Calculating a single weighted-average yield on the bonds in the portfolio.

When applying a third party’s bond model, which the actuary has determined is appropriate (or has adjusted so as to make it appropriate) for the purpose of selecting an IAS 19 discount rate for measuring the cash flows, the actuary should be guided by ISAP 1, paragraph 2.3. Reliance on Others.

d. Alternative Approaches – The actuary may use alternative approaches to those described above. When doing so, the actuary should understand the data and assumptions on which the approach is based and the circumstances in which it can be applied appropriately. The alternative approach should take into account both the duration of the projected benefit cash flows attributed to employee service up to the measurement date and their shape (that is, whether the cash flows over time are smooth or lumpy). Subject to materiality (see 2.2.) and proportionality (see 2.3.), examples of alternative approaches include, but are not limited to:

i. The actuary may recommend a single discount rate that, in the actuary’s professional judgment, approximates the weighted-average rate that would be determined under one of the preceding approaches.

ii. The actuary may apply a market index or other reference rate, with adjustments if appropriate. The actuary should have sufficient understanding of the bond data and methodology used to construct the index or reference rate, to conclude that it is appropriate for the purpose of selecting an IAS 19 discount rate for measuring the present value of the defined benefit obligation (or has adjusted so as to make it appropriate). When applying a market index or other reference rate, the

7


actuary also should be guided by ISAP 1, paragraph 2.3. Reliance on Others.

If using approach (b.), (c.) or (d.), the actuary may recommend a different discount rate assumption for use in determining current service cost by applying the same conceptual approach but substituting projected cash flows of benefits attributed to service in the current year.

2.6.4. General Price Inflation Assumption – When the actuary is advising the principal on the selection or reasonableness of a general price inflation assumption, the actuary should review information on market-implied expectations at the measurement date. Examples of such information include:

a. changes in price indices;

b. implicit price deflators;

c. yields on nominal and inflation-indexed debt (taking into account the effect of any significant supply-demand imbalances);

d. forecasts of inflation;

e. relevant regional factors; and

f. central bank monetary policy.

2.6.5. Medical Cost Assumptions – When the actuary is advising the principal on the selection or reasonableness of medical cost assumptions, the actuary should consider estimated future changes in the cost of medical services, which may differ significantly from general price inflation. When material and proportionate to the actuarial services, the actuary should consider separate assumptions for major cost components such as hospital services, drugs, medical devices, other medical services, and administrative expenses. The actuary also should consider different assumptions for different future time periods.

2.6.6. Other Assumptions Regarding Changes in Employee Benefit Levels – For some types of employee benefits, future benefit levels may reflect factors other than general price inflation or future medical costs. When the actuary is advising the principal on the selection or reasonableness of an assumption about future benefit levels, the actuary should identify relevant factors that, in the actuary’s professional judgment, are likely to have a material effect on future benefit levels under the plan. Depending on the type of employee benefit plan, examples of relevant factors may include:

a. merit or promotional salary increases;

b. investment returns on actual or notional assets;

c. changes in benefit utilization or delivery patterns;

d. changes in social insurance benefits;

e. changes in offsets of benefits provided by other parties;

f. expected changes in mandated benefits; and

g. changes in the demographic profile of plan participants.

8


2.6.7. Change in Process for Developing Assumptions – The actuary generally should apply a consistent process from year to year to develop recommended assumptions for a particular reporting entity. When the actuary considers it appropriate to change the process used to develop a recommended assumption, the actuary should discuss the change with the principal, and should seek guidance from the principal regarding whether to make the change, and if so, what, if any, information about the change should be disclosed in the actuary’s report. For example, if the principal determines that the change in the assumption-setting process may be subject to IAS 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, the principal may ask the actuary to disclose the nature of the change and its general effect in the report.

2.7. Plan Assets – When the actuarial services take plan assets into account, the actuary should be guided by the following:

2.7.1. Asset Values Supplied by Others – The actuary may rely on asset values prepared by a third party (such as a trustee or investment manager) and, when doing so, should be guided by ISAP 1 paragraph 2.3.3. Reliance on Others.

2.7.2. Qualifying Insurance Policies – The actuary should distinguish between qualifying insurance policies and other sources of reimbursement for expenditures required to settle a defined benefit obligation. When plan assets include qualifying insurance policies, the actuary should appropriately reflect those policies in the calculation of the deficit or surplus. For example, the actuary should appropriately differentiate between the reporting entity’s employee benefit obligations and those that an insurer has assumed.

2.7.3. Asset-related Benefit Liabilities –When the benefit level is affected by the value of plan assets (for example, when benefit levels are linked to the return on plan assets (see paragraph 2.6.6.) or depend on whether there is a surplus), the actuary should ensure that the valuation of the employee benefits is consistent with the nature of the linked assets.

2.8. Asset Ceiling – The asset ceiling is the present value of economic benefits available to the reporting entity in the form of refunds from the plan or reductions in future contributions to the plan. IAS 19 requires a reporting entity to recognize a net defined benefit asset at the lower of the surplus in the defined benefit plan and the asset ceiling. International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee Interpretation number 14 (IFRIC 14) provides guidance on how to determine the asset ceiling. Unless the actuary is certain whether and how to apply the asset ceiling, having due regard to issues such as legal interpretation of the plan rules or any minimum funding requirements, the actuary should seek guidance from the principal whether and how to apply IFRIC 14.

2.9. Attribution of Benefits to Service Periods – When advising the principal on the attribution of plan benefits to service periods, the actuary should exercise professional judgment to address plan designs whose treatment is not clear from IAS 19.

9


Section 3. Communication

3.1. Disclosures in the Report – In addition to complying with ISAP 1 Section 3. Communication, the actuary should disclose in the report:

a. Any material deviation from the guidance in this ISAP (1.3.);

b. Any reliance on the principal’s representations regarding constructive obligations (2.4.); and

c. Any information regarding a change in the process for selecting assumptions that is requested to be disclosed (2.6.7.).

10


APPENDIX

Note: this appendix is provided for informational purposes, and is not part of the ISAP.

Background

IAS 19 prescribes employers’ accounting and disclosure requirements for their employee benefits other than share-based payments, which are accounted for in accordance with IFRS 2 Share-based Payment. On 16 June 2011, the IASB published a revised IAS 19. As of the date of publication of this ISAP, the IASB has amended the revised IAS 19 twice:

A narrow-scope amendment entitled Defined Benefit Plans: Employee Contributions, published in November 2013.

An amendment entitled Discount Rate: Regional Market Issues, included in Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2012–2014 Cycle, published [month] 2014.

A key principle of IAS 19 is that it generally requires the cost of providing employee benefits to be recognized in the period in which the employee performs services, rather than when the benefit is paid.

Categorization of Employee Benefit Plans

IAS 19 defines four categories of employee benefits (excluding equity share-based compensation):

Short-term benefits expected to be settled wholly before twelve months after the end of the annual reporting period in which the employees render the related services, such as wages, salaries and social security contributions, paid annual leave and paid sick leave, profit-sharing and bonuses and non-monetary benefits (such as medical care, housing, cars and free or subsidized goods or services) for current employees.

Post-employment benefits, such as defined contribution retirement plans, pensions, lump sum payments on retirement, post-employment life insurance and post-employment medical care. This category is further broken down between defined benefit and defined contribution plans:

– Under a defined contribution plan, the reporting entity pays fixed contributions into a fund but has no legal or constructive obligation to make further payments if the fund does not have sufficient assets to pay all of the employees' entitlements to post-employment benefits;

– A defined benefit plan is a post-employment benefit plan other than a defined contribution plan.

Other long-term employee benefits, such as long-service leave or sabbatical leave, jubilee or other long-service benefits, and long-term disability benefits.

Termination benefits payable as a result of the reporting entity’s decision to terminate the employee or the employee’s decision to accept an offer of benefits in exchange for termination of employment.

11


Accounting Treatment Depends on Categorization

Short-term benefits and defined contribution post-employment benefits. For short-term benefits or defined contribution post-employment plans, the undiscounted amount of the benefits or contributions expected to be paid is recognized in the accounting period the employee renders service.

Defined benefit post-employment plans and other long-term employee benefits. Defined benefit post-employment benefits and other long-term employee benefits are generally attributed to employees’ service. The employer recognizes a liability/asset in the statement of financial position equal to the present value of these benefits attributed to service through the measurement date (the “present value of the defined benefit obligation”), minus the fair value of plan assets at the measurement date. This net liability/asset is called the net defined benefit liability/asset. The net asset recognized on the employer’s statement of financial position is limited to the “asset ceiling,” defined as the present value of economic benefits available to the employer as refunds from the plan and/or as reductions in future contributions.

Employers must recognize service cost and net interest (on the net defined benefit liability/asset) in the profit or loss. Service cost includes the cost of benefits attributed to service during the accounting period, changes in the defined benefit obligation due to plan amendments or curtailments occurring in the accounting period, and gains or losses from settlements occurring in the accounting period. Net interest is calculated by applying the discount rate (used to measure the defined benefit obligation) to the net defined benefit liability/asset, adjusted for contributions and benefit payments during the accounting period.

All other changes in the net defined benefit obligation/asset, including the difference between actual investment return and the expected return determined using the discount rate, changes in the defined benefit obligation from discount rate or other assumption changes, and experience gains and losses, are recognized immediately in Other Comprehensive Income (OCI).

IAS 19 provides a special rule for long-term disability or employment-related injury benefits. When the level of benefit is the same for any employee regardless of years of service, the expected cost of those benefits is recognized when an event occurs that causes a long-term disability or employment-related injury.

Termination benefits. Termination benefits are triggered by the termination of employment, and are recognized when the reporting entity can no longer withdraw the offer of those benefits or, if earlier, when the reporting entity recognizes associated restructuring costs. Termination benefits may take various forms, such as lump sum payments, pension benefit enhancements, or salary continuation for a specified period.

IFRS Financial Statement Disclosures

IAS 19 requires the reporting entity to disclose information in its IFRS financial statement that:

Explains the characteristics of defined benefit plans and risks associated with them;

Identifies and explains the amounts in the IFRS financial statement arising from defined benefit plans; and

12


Describes how its defined benefit plans may affect the amount, timing, and uncertainty of the reporting entity’s future cash flows.

Actuarial services in connection with IAS 19 often include assisting reporting entities in meeting these disclosure objectives. Areas where actuaries may provide particularly valuable input include:

Disclosures about plan characteristics or risks that are unusual, reporting entity-specific or plan-specific, such as post-employment medical benefit plans with no lifetime claims limit, plan-specific limitations on refunds of surplus to the employer, concentrations of plan assets in one class of investments, or counter-party risk associated with expected insurance recoveries;

Disclosures about existing risk-management strategies such as enterprise risk management, asset-liability matching, or longevity swaps;

Explanation of amounts in the IFRS financial statement, including the reconciliation of amounts shown in the IFRS financial statement from the beginning to the end of the year;

The appropriate level of aggregation or disaggregation of employee benefit plans according to their characteristics and risks;

Disclosures about how defined benefit plans may affect the amount, timing, and uncertainty of the reporting entity’s future cash flows (such as expected funding contributions);

Disclosures about the maturity profile of the defined benefit obligation; and

Disclosures about the significant assumptions used to determine the present value of the defined benefit obligation, their “reasonably possible” variation, and the consequent change in the present value of the defined benefit obligation at the measurement date. IAS 19 does not establish a numeric threshold for determining significance or reasonably possible variations, but refers to IFRS 7 (paragraph B19) for the principles to be used to quantify “reasonably possible” variations.

13

transmittal memorandum - international actuarial · web viewthe alternative approach should...

Documents